Laos

Lao People’s Democratic Republic is a landlocked country, bordering Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and China. The state gained independence from France in 1953 and is one of the few remaining one-party socialist states with a fast-growing economy[ref]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/la.html[/ref]. However, it is estimated that a third of the country’s 6.5 million people live below the international poverty line.

Laotian society is the most ethnically diverse in Southeast Asia. As of 2019, the ethnic makeup of Laos mainly comprises of the Lao-Tai (62.4%), Mon-Khmer (23.7%), Hmong-Iu Mien (9.7%) and Chine-Tibetan (2.9%), which are further broken into over 200 ethnic groups and subgroups[ref]https://laos.opendevelopmentmekong.net/topics/ethnic-minorities-and-indigenous-people/[/ref].

A 2010 country population report revealed that 66% of the population are Buddhists, 30% follow Laotian folk religion, 1.5% are Christians and less than 1% are Muslims. It is not known exactly how many Laotians identify as atheists or agnostic[ref]https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2012/12/globalReligion-tables.pdf[/ref].

The resource-rich country is ranked one of the least free countries and has a poor human rights record, particularly around enforced disappearances and restrictions on religious freedoms, freedom of expression, freedom of press and information, freedom of assembly and freedom of association[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2020;https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/laos/report-laos/[/ref].

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
Official symbolic deference to religion
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
No condition holds in this strand
Constitution and government
Official symbolic deference to religion
Education and children’s rights
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
No condition holds in this strand
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Severe Discrimination
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
No Rating
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

Article 30 of the Constitution[ref]https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/75323/87941/F1091614924/LAO75323.pdf[/ref] explicitly provides for the freedom of and from religion, which states “Lao citizens have the right and freedom to believe or not to believe in religions”, while Article 31 guarantees right to freedom of speech, press, assembly, association. Article 32 states that “Lao citizens have the right and freedom to conduct study and to apply advanced sciences, techniques and technologies; to create artistic and literary works and to engage in cultural activities which are not contrary to the law.”

The Constitution and some laws and policies protect religious freedom; however, other contradictory laws and policies restrict this right. Article 9 not only differentiates Buddhism from “other religions” but also states that: “all acts of creating division of religions and classes of people are prohibited”. The government interprets this clause as justifying some restrictions on religious practice by members of all religious groups. Religious groups that are not recognised by the state also have to affiliate with one of the recognised religions in order to legally operate within the country[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/LAOS-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref].

Decree 315, issued in 2016, dictates how and where religious groups operate. According to the decree, all religious groups must register with the Ministry of Home Affairs and must comply with the administrative requirements and guidelines on how, where and in what circumstance they are allowed to operate in. The language is reported to be vague and open to interpretation[ref]https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1158921/download[/ref].

There is no state religion. However, there is symbolic deference to Buddhism, which is the dominant religion throughout the land[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-report-on-international-religious-freedom/laos/[/ref]. In addition to Buddhism, the state also officially recognises other religious groups – namely, Christianity, Islam and the Baha’i Faith[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-report-on-international-religious-freedom/laos/[/ref]. The Ministry of Home Affairs and the Lao Front for National Construction oversees issues pertaining to religious affairs in the country[ref]https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1158921/download[/ref]. There are also reports of suspicion and discrimination against Western religious faiths, particularly against Protestant Christians[ref]https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A.HRC.13.40.Add.4_enAEV.pdf[/ref]. Violations against Protestant Christians often occur at a provincial level rather than at the state level[ref]https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/17/laos-no-progress-rights#:~:text=Key%20areas%20of%20concern%20in,repression%20of%20minority%20religious%20groups; http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Uncertain-freedom-for-Laotian-Christians-50027.html[/ref].

Proselytizing is banned[ref]religiousfreedom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169&Itemid=29[/ref].

Education and children’s rights

While there is no religious curriculum in public schools, the teaching of Buddhism is promoted as part of its mandatory cultural sessions.[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-report-on-international-religious-freedom/laos/[/ref] Authorities claim that the promotion of Buddhist practices are taught in a secular manner and parents are allowed to remove their children if they wish. However, in some provinces, there are reports of students being forced into taking lessons in Buddhism or praying in Buddhist temples in order to advance to the next level[ref]https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1158921/download[/ref].

Family, community and society

LGBTQ+ rights

Same-sex activity is legal in Laos. However, the country does not recognise same-sex marriages or family units. LGBTQ+ persons do not have explicit legal protections and it is not known if conversion therapies exist in Laos[ref]https://www.equaldex.com/region/laos[/ref].

Women’s rights

Both the constitution and existing laws on land rights, inheritance and personal laws view men and women as “equal”. The government has initiated programs aimed at promoting gender equality by improving literacy, health outcomes and economic empowerment[ref]https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/thematic_issues/gender/background/pdf/e05lao.pdf[/ref]. However, it is unclear to what extent this legal equality exists in practice. For example, women find it more difficult to apply for loans because banks usually require the signature from the “head of the household” – who is typically male[ref]https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—asia/—ro-bangkok/documents/publication/wcms_103494.pdf[/ref].

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Media freedom

Although Article 31 in the Constitution states that “Lao citizens have the right and freedom of speech, press and assembly”, freedom of the press is severely restricted.  Most media is state owned and controlled, and journalists that criticize the government or discusses controversial political topics face legal punishment. While private media outlets do exist, they mostly steer away from reporting on politically controversial topics[ref]https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/country-profiles/laos/[/ref].

In 2014, the Lao government issued a decree ostensibly aimed at addressing “fake news”. The law bans the dissemination and circulation of false information that may undermine national security and prosperity of the country[ref]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-laos-internet/new-laos-web-decree-bans-criticism-of-government-policy-media-idUSKCN0HI0WT20140923[/ref]. It also requires website administrators to verify accounts and content before it is uploaded on their web page[ref]https://thediplomat.com/2014/11/laos-internet-law-undermines-free-speech/[/ref].

News platforms must register with the Media Department of the Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism before it can operate on social media sites. Individual social media users do not need to register with the ministry but must use their real names when setting up an account[ref]https://technology.inquirer.net/89044/laos-orders-registration-of-social-media-news-platforms[/ref]. Violators of the decree face unspecified legal action that can include account termination, fines or a prison sentence.

In addition to its restrictions on civil and political freedoms, reports also show that activists and political dissidents often risk disappearing upon speaking out against the government’s interests[ref]https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2020/02/21/laos-activist-od-sayavong-still-missing-six-months-while-critics-continue-be-silenced/; https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/17/laos-no-progress-rights#:~:text=Key%20areas%20of%20concern%20in,repression%20of%20minority%20religious%20groups.[/ref].

Imports

The import of written materials made for mass consumption, including religious materials, are regulated by Decree 315, issued in 2016. Items must be approved by the authorities[ref]https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-report-on-international-religious-freedom/laos/[/ref].

Freedom of assembly

The government severely restricts the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of association. The Ministry of Home Affairs have the authority to restrict religious activities that go against local customs or national policies and are allowed to shut down any activity that is deemed a threat to national security[ref]https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1158921/download[/ref]. It is illegal to participate in organizations that engage in public protests or that in any other way cause “turmoil or social instability.” Violators can receive sentences of up to five years in prison.